Re: [389-users] 389-DS poor performance retrieving groups

On 08/05/2015 06:41 AM, Mark Reynolds wrote: On 08/05/2015 08:24 AM, Mark Reynolds wrote: On 08/04/2015 11:57 AM, ghiureai wrote: We are seeing poor performance from LDAP retrieving 2500-4500 entries

Re: [389-users] 389-DS poor performance retrieving groups

ou use two surrounding wildcards then you must use 3 characters: cn=*abc* Regards, Mark Thank you [389-users] 389-DS poor performance retrieving groups On 08/05/2015 08:24 AM, Mark Reynolds wrote: >/ />/ />/ On 08/04/2015 11:57 AM, ghiureai wrote: />>/ <https://www.fl

[389-users] 389-DS poor performance retrieving groups

Mark, would be accepted to accommodate only substring indexes followed by wild char than ? aka :cn=abc*, cn=efg* may need couple of this indexes. Thank you [389-users] 389-DS poor performance retrieving groups On 08/05/2015 08:24 AM, Mark Reynolds wrote: / />/ />/ On

Re: [389-users] 389-DS poor performance retrieving groups

On 08/05/2015 08:24 AM, Mark Reynolds wrote: On 08/04/2015 11:57 AM, ghiureai wrote: We are seeing poor performance from LDAP retrieving 2500-4500 entries compare with one of our regular RDBMS , here i

Re: [389-users] 389-DS poor performance retrieving groups

On 08/04/2015 11:57 AM, ghiureai wrote: We are seeing poor performance from LDAP retrieving 2500-4500 entries compare with one of our regular RDBMS , here is bellow the result for a ldapsearch. We are qu

Re: [389-users] 389-DS poor performance retrieving groups

t." <389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 6:04:17 PM Subject: Re: [389-users] 389-DS poor performance retrieving groups On 08/04/2015 11:57 AM, ghiureai wrote: We are seeing poor performance from LDAP retrieving 2500-4500 entries compare with one of our regular RDBMS ,

Re: [389-users] 389-DS poor performance retrieving groups

August 4, 2015 6:04:17 PM Subject: Re: [389-users] 389-DS poor performance retrieving groups On 08/04/2015 11:57 AM, ghiureai wrote: We are seeing poor performance from LDAP retrieving 2500-4500 entries compare with one of our regular RDBMS , here is bellow the result for a ldapsearch.

Re: [389-users] 389-DS poor performance retrieving groups

On 08/04/2015 12:53 PM, German Parente wrote: - Original Message - From: "Mark Reynolds" To: "General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project." <389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 6:04:17 PM Subject: Re: [389-user

Re: [389-users] 389-DS poor performance retrieving groups

- Original Message - > From: "Mark Reynolds" > To: "General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project." > <389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org> > Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 6:04:17 PM > Subject: Re: [389-users] 389-DS poor performa

Re: [389-users] 389-DS poor performance retrieving groups

On 08/04/2015 11:57 AM, ghiureai wrote: We are seeing poor performance from LDAP retrieving 2500-4500 entries compare with one of our regular RDBMS , here is bellow the result for a ldapsearch. We are qu

[389-users] 389-DS poor performance retrieving groups

We are seeing poor performance from LDAP retrieving 2500-4500 entries compare with one of our regular RDBMS , here is bellow the result for a ldapsearch. We are questioning if for general cn=(.*..) search s